• Play the sound file (duration 32m12s).
[Music clip: From Haydn's Derbyshire Marches]
01 — Intro. A week of outrages, ladies and gentlemen. Radio Derb listeners are sufficiently erudite, I am sure, that I need not remind you of the epitaph Jonathan Swift wrote for himself: "Here lies the body," he wrote, "Ubi sæva indignatio ulterius cor lacerare nequit" — Where savage indignation can no longer lacerate the heart. I get a little surge of that savage indignation myself now and then, gentle listener, and can think of no way to rid myself of it but to inflict it on thee. Hey, listen, better I should vent on the airwaves than take it out on my wife, kids, and dog.
02 — State Department apologizes to China for U.S. "discrimination." Outrage number one. Meet Michael Posner, who until last year was president of an outfit called Human Rights First, which describes itself on its website as, amongst other things, quote, "a leading advocate for the rights of refugees seeking asylum in the U.S.," end quote. We shall meet one of those refugees shortly. You don't have to read very far into that website to see that Human Rights First is in fact an outfit run by bleeding-heart guilty white liberals dedicated to the proposition that anyone with a sob story should be able to settle in the U.S.A. with full welfare privileges, probably including the right to kick native-born American citizens off the sidewalk.
Well, last September Mr. Posner was drafted into the U.S. State Department as Assistant Secretary of State for the Bureau of Democracy, Human Rights and Labor. Yes, he got a government job, reporting to Hilary Clinton.
In that capacity, Mr. Posner went off to China last week in charge of a delegation to meet with mid-level Chinese officials to discuss human rights.
You might think that the plight of dissident intellectuals like Gao Zhisheng, Liu Xiaobo, and Wang Bingzhang would be at the front of Mr. Posner's mind; or the plight of peasants driven off their land by property developers with good political connections; or Falun Gong practitioners, rounded up and shipped off to the organ farms anytime they dare try meditating in public; or the colonized regions of Tibet and Eastern Turkestan, whose people are second-class citizens in their own historic homelands; or North Korean refugees periodically rounded up by ChiCom authorities and shipped back to their homeland, which throws them into labor camps; or any of the other outrages against decency and humanity routinely committed by the Leninist gangsters of Peking.
You might think that, but you'd be wrong. Like every other liberal in America, Mr. Posner was afflicted by his own savage indignation over the new Arizona law aimed at illegal aliens. He couldn't wait to tell the ChiComs about it. Quote from him, when asked at a follow-up press conference whether the Arizona business had come up with the ChiComs, quote: "We brought it up early and often. It was mentioned in the first session and as a troubling trend in our society, and an indication that we have to deal with issues of discrimination or potential discrimination." End quote.
Now, I happen to know that Chinese diplomats, as part of their training to deal with foreigners, are given a golden rule: 不亢不卑 — "neither haughty nor humble." I offer this to the State Department, free of charge, as a guideline for their personnel.
03 — Obama's Auntie. Outrage number two. Barack Obama's aunt, Kenyan citizen Zeituni Onyango, has been illegally resident in the U.S.A. since 2004, when her application for political asylum was refused and a court ordered her to leave the country. That's six years as a fugitive from justice.
It's been a pretty nice six years for Aunt Zeituni. She went on living in the public housing unit in Boston that she'd somehow wangled in 2003. Shouldn't U.S. citizens have first call on public housing, not foreigners, let alone foreign scofflaws? Don't ask.
Not only did Aunt Zeituni enjoy a home at Boston taxpayers' expense, they also gave her a job! She's been working part-time for the city's Housing Authority as a "public health advocate." Oh, and while a fugitive from justice she broke a different law by illegally contributing money to her nephew's presidential campaign. Foreigners are not supposed to contribute to our political campaigns.
In that 2008 campaign Aunt Zeituni's case became public knowledge. She got lawyered up and began fighting the 2004 deportation order. An immigration court judge, in a closed hearing, has now struck down the order, granting asylum to Ms. Onyango. The lady arrived at the court in a wheelchair, pleading disability, but strange to say she walked out after the judgment. She was wearing expensive designer clothes, as she usually does, and a $250 pair of sunglasses.
All that lawyering must also have cost a pretty penny. This is one high-maintenance aunt. Aunt Zeituni's personal finances are no business of yours or mine, but you'd think all this conspicuous consumption would have someone in the Boston Housing Authority wondering why she qualifies for public housing and a make-work public job.
But then, she is the half-sister of the president's totally-absent father, about whom Obama wrote a fawning book, while the mother who had actually taken the trouble to raise Obama was dying of cancer.
04 — Calderón insults his hosts. Outrage number three. Felipe Calderón, the president of Mexico — or "miserable, inefficient Mexico," as Walt Whitman called it — came to Washington on a state visit.
Calderón's main priority is the business that he probably refers to, in the privacy of his chambers, as "export-import." Mexico survives by exporting her criminals and high school dropouts to the U.S.A. That way Calderón and his elite pals can go on looting the Mexican public fisc without fear of revolutionary disturbances. And these mass exports of warm bodies generate imports — billions of dollars a year in remittances from tax-shirking, welfare-leeching Mexicans illegally resident in our country — basically payments from American taxpayers that end up in the Swiss bank accounts of the larcenous Mexican elites.
That's not the whole of the Mexican economy, of course. There's the drug trade and the donkey shows too; but that's most of it, and Calderón's job is to keep the locomotive on the tracks. So here he was in Washington to pump up his little export-import racket. One-tenth of Mexico's population already resides illegally in the U.S.A.: Calderón would like to raise that to a quarter, perhaps a half. And while he's exporting his surplus peasantry to us, Calderón's making darn sure the even more miserable and inefficient countries to his south don't export their useless mouths to Mexico. Any illegal immigrants found in Mexico are given a good thrashing then tossed into trucks and shipped back across the border into Guatemala. At least, the lucky ones are. The unlucky ones get kidnapped by the crime cartels and held for ransom — or, if they are so unlucky as to have no relatives in the U.S.A. willing to ransom them, for puppy chow.
So what did he have to tell us, this paragon of humane values, at the welcome ceremony on the White House lawn? Quote: "I know that we share the interest in promoting dignified, legal and orderly living conditions to all migrant workers. Many of them, despite their significant contribution to the economy and to the society of the United States, still live in the shadows and, occasionally, as in Arizona, they even face discrimination." End quote.
I waited breathlessly for two Secret Service men to grab Calderón, frog-march him to the airport, throw him on a plane back to his fly-specked stinking joke of a country, and demand the recall of ambassadors. What I got instead was Barack Obama on his hands and knees licking Calderón's Gucci loafers and slobbering that, quote, "In the 21st century we are not defined by our borders but by our bonds." Apparently where the president of Mexico is concerned, the First Panderer decided a simple bow would not suffice.
Talk about savage indignation. Is there any reason why Congress should not declare war against Mexico? If they do, I'll be out standing on line at the recruiting office before they open. Why are we fighting in Afghanistan, when our deadliest enemy is right there south of our border?
05 — Human rights trump national security. Outrage number four. This one's kind of a relief, actually: an outrage, but a relief.
After that previous item it would be all too easy to conclude that the U.S.A., under its current leadership, is the most stupidly suicidal nation that ever existed. Well, not quite. Listen to this.
Here are two terrorists, Abid Naseer and Ahmed Faraz Khan, both from — which friendly nation, can you guess? — yes, it's Pakistan. These two gents live in England. Having nothing better to do in between collecting welfare benefits from the British taxpayer, they joined an Al Qaeda cell and hatched up a plot to blow up a couple hundred infidels at a shopping center in northwest England.
The Brits got wind of the plot and arrested them, and ordered them deported back to Pakistan. The terrorists appealed to an immigration court, however, and the court ruled in their favor. Said the judge, quote: "Pakistan has a long and well-documented history of disappearances, illegal detention, and of the torture and ill-treatment of those detained." End quote. Hey, good! Sounds like just the place you'd want to deport vermin like these to.
Unfortunately Britain has signed on to a European human rights law that prevents deportation to places that might give these creatures what they deserve. Therefore Mr. Naseer and Mr. Khan can stay in Britain. No doubt they'll be given public housing and allowed to continue drawing welfare benefits. Like Aunt Zeituni, they've successfully gamed the immigration system.
"The first thing we do, let's kill all the lawyers," says the butcher in Henry the Sixth — words that have returned an echo from many a bosom this past four hundred years. If it were up to me, though, I'd start with the immigration judges.
06 — Better dead than homophobic. I'm not through yet with the savage indignation. Outrage number five. No doubt you've read about this oil spill in the gulf of Mexico. Well, our president was on the case. He appointed a team of five what he called "extraordinarily intelligent scientists" to come up with a plan for cleaning up the gulf — two physicists and three engineers, all indeed top-flight scientists. To my stunned amazement, they were all white males. There wasn't even a wise Latina among them. What happened to diversity?
You'd think the lefties would have been up in arms about that — or up in Navaho rain sticks, whatever, since lefties don't really approve of arms. No: they had something far worse to shriek about. Turns out that one of the physics professors, Jonathan Katz, had once written an essay titled "In Defense of Homophobia." [Scream] Katz is a physics professor at Washington University in St. Louis, but he does some writing and blogging too. Well, back in 1999 he wrote this essay making a rationalist, non-religious case for homophobia, and pointing out that the AIDS epidemic was spread in America by promiscuous male homosexuals — a simple true fact known to everyone, but which we are not supposed to mention for fear of hurting someone's feelings. Speaking as a member of the homophobe community myself, I though Katz did a pretty good job with the essay.
Our Homophile-in-Chief took a different view, and dropped Professor Katz from the gulf clean-up team. This puts our political culture about where Communist China's was in the late 1960s, during the Great Proletarian Cultural Revolution. At that time scholars were tagged as either "red" or "expert." To be "red" meant that your thinking was totally in line with that of the Communist Party, and you could quote Chairman Mao's thoughts from dawn to sundown. "Red" was good. To be "expert" meant you actually knew stuff, had some expertise in some field of study or practice. "Expert" was bad. "Red" trumped "expert" every time. The authorities didn't care what you knew, they only cared that you had the correct opinions about politics.
The oil spill in the gulf is a nuisance, but it's not a major life-threatening catastrophe. If such a catastrophe should appear, and the lives of millions of Americans be hanging in the balance, it would be nice to think that our nation's very best minds would be put to work to avert the disaster. It would be nice, but it would be naïve. The people actually put to work will be the ones who pass tests on political correctness. Of course, that might cost a few million Americans their lives, but what does that matter? At least they will have died in an atmosphere of ideological purity.
07 — Rand v. Rachel. OK, I'm pretty much out of the zone of outrage now — got it out of my system, thanks — and we can now proceed into the milder zone of liberals just annoying the hell out of me with their preening self-congratulatory flaunting of their own exquisite moral superiority.
Rand Paul, son of Ron Paul, which latter I had the great pleasure of voting for in a primary a year or so ago, Rand Paul won a primary of his own in Kentucky, and will now be Republican candidate for the Senate in that state this November.
That's good news; but Rand Paul is a libertarian, and that's not such good news. I don't say that because I think libertarianism is a bad thing. I think on balance it's a good thing, though I won't get enthusiastic about libertarianism until I hear libertarians talk sense about immigration and national sovereignty, which to date is a thing I have rarely heard. Ron Paul took a pretty sensible line on it, but he had to be pushed and prodded, and sounded like he'd rather be talking about von Misesan econometrics.
No, libertarianism is not a bad thing, but it's kind of an intellectual thing. To grasp it, you have to be able to think a bit. Most people get their news and opinions from TV, and there never was a medium less conducive to thought. That's why Rand Paul's libertarianism is bad news — because it's a hard sell on TV.
This was illustrated by Rand Paul's interview with hard-left liberal Rachel Maddow. Like many other liberals, Maddow's mindset is firmly stuck in 1964. She is keen for us to know that she would have supported the Civil Rights Act of that year. For someone who wasn't even born in 1964, this is just cheap grace. The past, as someone once said, is another country, where they do things differently. The only people who have bragging rights here are people who were actually around in 1964, and actually supported the Act — which would include, as it happens, me. The rest are just flashing cheap grace at us like low-grade bling.
From Rand Paul's point of view, topics like this put him on the spot to explain some libertarian theory, which as I said is not a thing you want to try and do on TV unless they give you a half-hour lecture spot.
There are, for example, good sound arguments against anti-discrimination laws in the private sector. Imagine you are an elderly widow with a room to let in your house. Two people respond to the ad: One is another elderly widow, the other a large young black guy with dreadlocks and a gold front tooth. The lady, who was brought up to be truthful, tells the guy she would prefer not to let to him because she finds him scary, and anyway she wants to help out the other widow, to whom she is naturally sympathetic. Mr. Dreadlocks now has grounds for a lawsuit.** Should he have? Is this right? Rand Paul doesn't think so, and neither do I. Sure, there is some theoretical nonzero possibility that the dreadlocked guy is a war hero, successful entrepreneur, card-carrying Republican and perfect gentleman, while the widow tenant is a North Korean mole who tortures small animals for fun. The homeowner is just going with the percentages, though, as we all do all the time. She's exercising private choice in her own home. Should that be against the law? And if it is, what happens to the supply of private rooms to let?
Federal prohibition of private acts of discrimination is not a no-brainer. There are arguments to be made, and I personally think the libertarians have the better of some of these arguments. Try getting that across on TV, though, in a three-minute segment with a hard-left liberal whooping in delight at her own displays of cheap grace and interrupting you every third word.
I thought Rand Paul came out of it pretty well. My advice to him in future, though, would be to stay away from the lefties. Just ignore them — none of the people who watch these imbeciles is ever going to vote for a conservative candidate anyway, much less a libertarian. Let the lefties squeal and crow and sputter and snarl at each other, while we try to get on with advancing conservatism among people who might be receptive to it.
Now, Rand, what have you got to say about immigration?
** Though not a federal lawsuit, as several listeners pointed out. One such explains: "The widow can indeed rent to the other widow without fear of any federal lawsuit thanks to what's called the 'Mrs. Murphy exemption' to Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1968, which contains the Fair Housing Act (FHA).
08 — Miscellany. And now … [Elephant … lion … earthquake …] … sorry, I'm running out of grandiose sound effects with which to introduce, yes, our closing miscellany of brief items.
Item: We have a new Miss America, 24-year-old Rima Fakih from Dearborn, Michigan. Ms. Fakih is a Muslim — our very first Muslim Miss America. Naturally it wouldn't be a real Miss America pageant without a bit of scandal. Turns out that Ms. Fakih had formerly won a pole-dancing contest for a Detroit radio show. I'm just reading this off the wire, I'll admit I don't quite get it. I mean, pole-dancing on the radio? Anyway, turns out Ms. Fakih's pole dancing gig stopped at the bikini underwear, as every listener to the radio show was surely aware, so no biggie. Certainly nothing like as shameful as that horrid Carri Prejean last year offering her opinion that homosexuals should be boiled in oil, or whatever her opinion was. Good riddance to her! And at least Ms. Fakih is not a burka Muslim. Though I suppose after a couple of death threats from the pulpit of the local mosque, that may change.
Item: Teams of researchers in Maryland and California have created an entirely artificial genome and implanted it in a cell. The cell then went ahead and replicated itself a billion times. This counts as a new species of life-form, the first one artificially created, unless you count the viruses these same researchers have been putting together since 2002, which biologists mostly don't. The researchers are calling the species Synthia, with an "S" like in the word "synthetic," not with a "C" as in Sir Walter Ralegh's long poem complaining that Elizabeth the First had given him the elbow: "If Cynthia be a queen, a princess, and supreme, / Keep these among the rest, or say it was a dream." Bearing in mind how stories about the creation of artificial of life usually end up, this may turn out to be more a nightmare than a dream, but I suppose there's no stopping it.
Item: Because I lived in Thailand for a while, people are asking me about all this trouble over there. OK, in a nutshell: It's the Reds versus the Yellows. The Reds are sort of Hugo Chávez style populists — peasants with pitchforks, though also, as far as the leaders of the movement are concerned, with an extra large helping of corruption. The Yellows are the institutional status quo: the military, the palace, the urban middle classes, businessmen. Unfortunately the Yellows also come with a large helping of corruption. It's corrupt populist insurgents, who would probably screw things up Venezuela-style, against a corrupt establishment who will probably keep the wagon on the road with nothing worse than the occasional financial crisis. So if you want to pick sides, go with the Yellows; but let's not kid ourselves this is a struggle between good and evil. It's more like stinking corrupt stability versus stinking corrupt instability. Truly, this is a fallen world we live in.
Item: It's now even more official that North Korea sank that South Korean ship back in March. An international panel of investigators has agreed with the South Koreans that it was a Nork torpedo that did it. Our Secretary of State put on her best angry face and said, quote, "We cannot allow this attack on South Korea to go unanswered by the international community." Ah, the international community! The one that did such a great job of protecting the lives and property of Cambodians, Tibetans, Rwandans, Zimbabwe farmers, Cuban dissidents, Russian journalists, Israeli schoolchildren … and so on. That great, implacable force, the international community! Poor Kim Jong Il must be trembling in his bunker.
Item: What we actually have is not a single international community, but an assortment of little international communities. Here's another one of those mini-international communities: Brazil, Iran, and Turkey. What do these three countries have in common? Well, they all have big anti-American constituencies to appease, they all want to go nuclear a.s.a.p., and not one of them give a fig what the U.S.A. thinks about it, however many times Mrs. Clinton stamps her foot and looks angry-face at them. I'm OK with it personally, though I'd be happier if we could just pass that constitutional amendment I've proposed — the one that says we should always possess five times as many nukes as the next three countries combined.
Item: The markets are tanking, the Euro's going down the tubes, the banks are in trouble, debt's out of control. Not to worry, though, Congress is taking action. Wait a minute, what did I just say? "Congress is taking action"? [Telephone sound] Sell! Sell!
09 — Signoff. That's it, folks. Another week sinks slowly in the west. I'm taking what consolation I can from this article in the June issue of Scientific America, title "Is Time an Illusion?" written by philosophy professor Craig Callender. Quote: "Time might have no independent existence but instead arise as a way to describe the relations among objects," end quote. Hmm. Reminds me of the old metaphysical ditty that "Space / Is what stops everything from being in the same place." Still, let's take what comfort we can. Say, Ahmed, you OK with this pole-dancing Muslim girl getting crowned Miss America? [Ahmed: "She is a whore of Satan."] I guess that's a no. Multiculturalism marches on, though. Another five years, we'll have a Muslim on the Supreme Court. Which will be just fine! I'm totally OK with it! Muslim, Wiccan, Zoroastrian, … anyone but a Protestant …
[Music clip: From Haydn's Derbyshire Marches]